Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top 1000 Scientists: From the Beginning of Time to 2000 AD


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was no consensus. Petros471 19:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Top 1000 Scientists: From the Beginning of Time to 2000 AD
I'm not sure that this is an encyclopedic article. Essentially, this article is a listing of one person's opinion of who the top 1000 scientists of all time are. The fact that this person also wrote a book on the subject changes nothing. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The book itself seems borderline notable ... there are few, if any google hits outside of Wikipedia and book resellers. Even so, if this were an actual article about the book, that would be one thing, but this "article" is just a list of scientists. It would be like changing Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition to just be a listing of articles contained in the encyclopedia. (By the way, before citing copyvio as a reason to delete, please see the talk page - apparantly, the author has given his permission for the article, so that would not seem to be an issue.) BigDT 19:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Just to clarify, this isn't just one person's opinion. It was obtained by "polling 80 universities worldwide". -- MisterHand 19:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok ... it's "one person's opinion that he formulated after polling a bunch of people" BigDT 19:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, pointless huge list of scientists, and not even in order of supposed importance. Sandstein 21:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Isn't this Copyvio? It's certainly beyond fair use. ~ trialsanderrors 02:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Please see the talk page - the author appears to have given his permission for it. BigDT 04:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I saw it. The other problem is that it is essentially a "closed list": No editable content. Or could I add Werner Heisenberg as proposed on the talk page? In other words, do we defer authorship? ~ trialsanderrors 04:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I wasn't defending the article - just pointing out that copyvio does not appear to be an issue. I 100% agree with you that this is not an encyclopedic article. BigDT 04:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. If it's not wikieditable, it's not wikipedic. ~ trialsanderrors 04:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * KeepAny list like this is bound to evoke some controversy.But all in all I feel this is a worthy effort whereby one can come across names of great scientists.As the talk page indicates even the Nobel list can evoke controversy.And this is not a single person's opinion and appears to have been given a seal of approval by the the President of the British Soceity for History of Science who certainly would be in a position to know the worth.And how on earth can one assess supposed importance?The list essentially is about great scientists who have been granted the seal of approval by their successoors and/or peers(Vr 06:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC))
 * I'm just wondering why no-one found it worthwhile to write an entry about the author. Also comparisons to Nobel lists fall flat for too mnay reasons to list. PS At the minimum the title should be changed to make clerar this is not a WP-endorsed list. ~ trialsanderrors 06:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's the title of the book, and its explicitly said so in the first sentence of the article. It doesn't violate any WP naming standards. For example, the article The Greatest Show on Earth isn't WP-endorsed either, and that title remains. If the article is kept, the name should remain as well. -- MisterHand 11:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep for the reasons given by Vr. Also the large number of redlinks is a usefull reminder of subjects for new articles. Anyone on this list should have a WP article. That would be about 110 new articles. --Bduke 07:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Is the book itself notable? If not delete.  Otherwise, re-write to be about the book. Ace of Sevens 12:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete So far as I can tell the book isn't notable. ScottW 02:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I have gone through the article carefully and consulted several colleagues at the JNU,Delhi where I am a research fellow.I think I shall be prepared to reconsider my vote if I could be convinced that artcle cannot be considered encyclopedic.Surely in a biographical encyclopedia we should expect material of this nature.In the JNU library,there are three books in the reference section on scientists.The first of course is the magnum opus which goes into 8 volumes and contains 8000 names.The second is the biographical encyclopedia produced by Oxford University Press which is updated every year and this book is the most recent addition.It was reviewed in September 2005 by Indian National Science Academy in favourable terms.

I think this book competes with the Oxford Press book.The difference here is that the latter is compiled by an editorial board of five while this is a result of feedback from 80 universities worldwide.Moreover the Oxford book contains about 3000 names.And the book has been accepted as an encyclopedia in the two reviews I came across.That is what I suspect prompted Gene Nygard to create this article.

As far as it being a closed list goes,I think any list which is the outcome of research is bound to be closed-i.e. membership of the Royal Society of London and National Academy of Sciences.As far as I know,this is the first effort to involve international dimension.And while the omissions are noteworthy,I came across some very interesting names which I have not come across in any other book eg.David Alter who does not find a place in either the 8 volumes or the Oxford book.After getting to know about him,I am convinced that his contribution was in no way less noteworthy than Heisenberg.

And surely a book that finds a place in the JNULibrary,Royal Society and Royal Institution Libraries(as it appears on the talk page)and Stanford Library at least has some merit.(Delhite 06:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC))


 * Your argument equally supports rewriting it into an article about the book without the list being included in the article. Ths list may belong in other wikis like Wikibooks or Wikisource 131.107.0.73 22:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Golfcam 17:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I would be more than interested to be advised about the norms.I have a feeling that any article which provides menaningful information of sufficient interest to a sizable number should merit inclusion.The criticism that it does not have some familiar names is balanced by the fact that some very notable names have been thrown up which do not strike the air of familiarity eg.David Alter about whom I knew nothing until I perused through the article and made enquiries.And the compairision with the Nobel List I think is not a true comparision.As the talk page would suggest,even the Nobel List omits worthies like Edison and Tesla.

The relevant question should be how does a lay person or a student of science get to know which scientist,both past and present,is highly regarded by his peers.Nobel Prizes came into being only in 1901 and one can legitimately raise seroius questions about them being all inclusive(Mathematics has been excluded)and credible when Tesla and Edison have been omitted.Membership of AAAS nad NAS suffer from same disabilities as does the Fellowship of Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and Royal Society of London.One does have to rely on the biographical encyclopedias available-and in my view,this effort is certainly noteworthy.I do not agree with moving the list elsewhere and keep the bit about teh book-people are bound to be curious about the names(Delhite 05:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC))
 * Keep The people who are considered the most notable in the field by those who are in that field is, of course, sufficiently important. An article about this book, listing the people who appear, is educational, important, and of interest to anyone who loves science. Qaz 20:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep This article is a list of scientists, is about the book (and hence the title of the book is title of the article, and like many lists includes redlinks suggesting articles to be created.  Note that I did not create this article, as stated above.  I have edited many of the links to make them work for existing articles.  Gene Nygaard 13:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, but for goodness sakes delete the ridiculous list. Wikipedia is not a collection of internal links. The article is notable as a published work of sufficient importance, but the entire list is not. Batmanand | Talk 15:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.